BluTezza39

iTrader: (2)

i know the new semi autos n auto tranny's are faster, but i don't think that extra second or two lap is worth getting rid of that extra control, and connection with the car. F1 is a lil diff then a street car. and from my experience, most people like the new stuff bc they are either too lazy or afraid to learn a stick. i am in no way attacking any of the members here, just strictly speaking about people im friends with. i know like 3 people out of my friends who can drive a stick. its sad if you ask me. i prefer to do things myself, not a computer, in regards to driving. plus heel and toe is really fun and takes more skill, IMO, then touching a paddle on a tranny that auto blips the throttle for you. getting faster laps times with a manual takes more skill then with a PDK or whatever. again not dissing anyone saying you have no skill, i know F1 drivers could drive a stick better then anyone on these forums yet they use the new sequential's. Unless a is350 comes with a stick, ill never want one, same for is-f. i do think i'd take a LFA tho ha

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

What kind of track?

At a dragstrip automatics dominate sticks, and even moreso in bracket racing since your shifts are completely consistent as well as faster.

rally racing? yeah lack of a real manual mode in the ISx50 is likely a drawback here, but I don't imagine many folks are doing this kind of racing in a 350 anyway.



I learned how to drive a stick over 20 years ago.... and have driven quite a few of em...and owned some... when I had my 500hp Impala (auto) I converted it to a manual valve body (fully manual control of gears, but no clutch)... hell, my wifes SC is a stick and I drove it yesterday. And using a clutch pedal is still annoying compared to an auto every single time.... doubly so an auto that offers a "real" manual mode.

Lots of things "take more skill" without assistance but that doesn't mean they're the best way to do them...


I mean, it "takes more skill" to shoot a deer between the eyes from the hip from 400 yards, but I'd rather use a scope.

It "takes more skill" to cook a prime rib roast to an exact temp without a thermometer but I'd rather use one.

It "takes more skill" to carve wood with your feet, but you'll get better results with your hands.

It "takes more skill" to play chess chess blindfolded, but I suspect I'll play a better game with my eyes open.

Gymniac

I was thinking of something like Laguna Seca. No drag racing. Lexus should have at least given the option of manual in IS350.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Why?

I mean, I know a few people want it... but they're only a few people.

From a business perspective it made no sense to offer one.

As noted- the 350 is only sold in certain markets, and primarily ones in which almost nobody prefers a clutch pedal.

Investing a bunch of $ in developing or licensing a manual that would hold the power and work well, plus the costs in factory/optioning/parts management/etc just to add up to maybe 1% of 2IS sales, makes no business sense at all.

Even on the 250, where it IS offered, the take rate is very very low.

Gymniac

I know it made business sense. But if Lexus wanted to be more of a "sport-luxo" company (like BMW), not just luxury premium brand, they would have kept the manual option for IS350 for those "enthusiasts." Rather unfortunate, since IS350 has pretty much everything going for it against cars like BMW 355i except in the transmission department. Still love mine though, just wish Lexus cared a bit about "us" too .

calvin2376

iTrader: (2)

All of these arguments are the same. "I know it makes business sense.....but they still should have offered a manual!" Trust me, it has nothing to do with Lexus not "caring" about you or anyone else.

You're right, some people wanted the IS350 to come with a manual. Some people probably wanted the IS to come with 2 doors instead of 4. And some people probably wanted it to come with an electric motor instead of a gasoline engine. And still others wanted it to come with monster truck tires....

You see where I'm going here. No car manufacturer can make a car that attends to the exact wishes and desires of every one of its potential customers. It has to build a car and design options for it that will best suit its targeted customer base. This will of course leave some people out.

If Lexus had offered a manual for the IS350, they would have needed to do the R&D, prototyping, testing, etc for it, and then incorporated into their manufacturing process a way to assemble it with one of two different transmissions instead of just one, increasing manufacturing complexity. To put this in more tangible terms for those who for unfathomable reasons eschew the "business sense" argument, all of this would have meant that you'd have paid more for your car. Lexus wouldn't just charge the total incremental cost of designing and building the manual transmission to only people who chose IS350 manuals, the added costs would have been rolled into the total cost of all IS350s, and frankly all of Lexus' cars.

So why would Lexus do this? A miniscule, miniscule percentage of buyers would actually buy an IS350 manual if given the choice. So why undergo all the added costs to design and build it? And why hurt demand for the car by raising prices to cover these added costs?

Add on top of this the fact that the automatic outperforms the manual in nearly every application, certainly every one that 99% of IS350 owners would encounter, and it's a no-brainer.

Again, you'd have to clarify "enthusiasts" as used here. Because most "enthusiasts" I know, when faced with a decision between two transmissions, one of which offers measurably and consistently superior performance nearly 100% of the time, would choose the superior one.

Gymniac

I'm no expert here but do you really think putting a manual in a IS350 will take THAT much R&D? Could they have used ones for IS250 or perhaps with some minimal modifications?

Gymniac

By "enthusiasts" I mean either those who like to row their own gears at a track or just on weekends on their favorite road OR somewhat serious track junkie who would want every advantage he/she could get at the track, in which case he/she would probably want a gear box with true-manual mode like the ones in IS-F. However, not all the "enthusiasts" I know of would always go for the option that will likely give them the best time. Some "enthusiasts" just prefer rowing their own gears. The "fully automatic" transmission will satisfy neither of these people.

I don't understand what you mean by "between the two transmissions." IS350 never came with a manual option. How do you know the fully automatic transmission in IS350 is "superior" to IS350 with manual (if such a thing existed)?

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

The one in the 250 kinda sucks though.

It's the only transmission in a 2IS I've seen multiple reports of folks needing new transmissions.... and even the ones that aren't busted are noisy, notchy, and unpleasant to use by and large.

It's a transmission they dragged over from a toyota pickup truck, and not well designed.

So while it's possible they could've found a way to make it work I doubt they'd want to.

But developing a new one and putting it in, yes, that is very expensive.

Heck, the 6-speed in the last-gen Supra... go price one of those sometime... and that's almost 20 years after they were developed and all R&D costs are made back... they're still like $5,000 or something crazy just for the transmission

Gymniac

Could it be it's relatively expensive just because it's a rare item now regardless of how much Toyota spent in "R&D" back when?

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

No, because it cost even more "back then"

So they'd spend millions of dollars (and yes, it'd be that much) to develop a transmission they'd use in exactly one total vehicle, and only to about 1% of the buyers of that vehicle, and it'd be slower and offer inferior mileage to the already existing automatic.

heck, the manual in the 250 gets worse mileage than the auto does in the same car too.


Let me put it another way- Toyota/Lexus is a very profitable company historically. They have fairly smart accountants as well as engineering and marketing folks.

Do you think that if they could have offered a manual in the 350 and made money on doing so, they wouldn't have?

Gymniac

I already know why Lexus didn't offer manual option for IS350. But that makes me wonder why Lexus did give a manual option for IS250 and one that "kinda sucks" at that as you put it. It also begs the question how a company like BMW is still offering manual options and still remain profitable and I know they don't sell too many of those either.

calvin2376

iTrader: (2)

Kurtz beat me to it but yes, it would be significant R&D expense. Nothing is as easy as just dragging a transmission over from the 250 line and slapping it on a 350. Toyota is a company known for quality and reliability, you can bet they'd invest a significant amount to design and build the right manual transmission for the application.

And like Kurtz said, the 250 manual isn't exactly revered. Toyota knows that, and if they were to go to the effort of putting a manual in the 350 to make it more "sport-luxo" as you say, you'd better believe they'd want to put something in there that wasn't pulled out of a truck.

Again, Lexus can't please everyone. The people you're talking about here are a miniscule percentage of buyers, despite what the extremely non-representative sample of CL members would have you believe.

Between the 250 manual and the automatic, the automatic will outperform the manual at the track hands down. So if you were a serious track junkie and wanted the best performance between these two options, you'd want the automatic.

More importantly, how many "serious track junkies" do you think bought the IS350? On CL I know of a handful of people that track their cars, and that's an extremely small number within a group I'd classify as "enthusiast". And do you think Lexus would expend the money to develop a transmission to serve such a small group of people?

Now you're talking about putting in the manual from the IS-F, which actually can improve upon the performance of the automatic, but at a far greater cost than a true stick-shift manual like the 250. An IS350 with the IS-F's transmission would be measurably more expensive. Demand would fall not only because the price would be higher, but because again, and this is really the crux of the whole issue, a manual transmission, whether stick-shift or paddle, is not demanded by the vast majority of IS350 buyers.

This was a hypothetical situation, if a buyer WERE to have the option of a manual in an IS350. If you're talking about just taking the IS250 manual and putting it in the IS350 (which you seem to be in most of your posts), then it's clear from performance figures on CL and in publications that the automatic outperforms the manual.

If you're talking about a whole new transmission or the IS-F transmission, then that's a whole other issue, and like I said above 1) would not be demanded by the majority of buyers and 2) would raise prices for everyone.

calvin2376

iTrader: (2)

It's not a question of just being profitable. Of course both BMW and Lexus are profitable. The question is "Will offering a manual transmission offer incremental profit over NOT offering a manual transmission?"

Lexus determined that compared to selling the IS350 only as an automatic, selling the IS350 with a manual option would NOT make them MORE profitable. The incrementality is key.

Gymniac

So what am I to make out of the fact that Toyota did just pulled the transmission from a truck and put it into IS250 with no proper re-design? That doesn't exactly sound like a "pursuit of perfection" to me? What's more intriguing to me is this: if the decision to not have a manual option in IS350 was purely based on business case, then I don't see any reason why IS250 should have a manual option, but it does. I mean, other than the engine output, 250 and 350 are basically same cars. Does this mean that Lexus thought the transmission they pulled out of a truck was good enough as-is for 250 but not good enough for 350?